MORTIMER CHAMBERS

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE THEMISTOCLES DECREE

Previous studies. The purported decree moved by Themistocles in the

Athenian assembly in 480 B.C. is one of the most famoxis of all Greek
inscriptions. Professor J A M E S O N ' S prompt pubhcation of his discovery and
his very leamed commentary provided the material for a copious dis-
cussion^. By now many historians have expounded theirideas, anditistime
for another look at the contributions so far made. The main issue persists:
whether the decree is authentic — that is, whether it records a group of
public decisions taken by the Athenians in 480®. If it does, it is a document
that we must use in our reconstruction of the course of the second Persian
War.
There is no need to summarize all the arguments brought forth on either
side. These have appeared in various Journals, and the reader will determine
their value for himself. Yet we can hardly discuss the significance of the
decree without recurring to the question of its authenticity.
We must first draw a distinction between arguments that are potentially
conclusive and those that are not. Much of the debate has concemed matters
that seem to me less than crucial. Among these arguments, I include
especially those conceming the phraseology and terminology in the tert.
When the decree first appeared, the defenders of its authenticity pointed to
some archaic-sounding phrases and words as if they guaranteed the fifth-
century origin of the text. I must restate my opinion that such expressions
prove nothing. For example, it is true that the cult-name of Zeus, Pankrates,
is used in the inscription and also in Aeschylus, the archaic fifth-century
tragedian. But a forger who wanted to lend an old-fashioned tone to his text
could easily have selected this word for the purpose. The same argument is
valid against the assertion that the word Ta^t?, found in the text with the
meaning "crew of a ship", is being used in an antique manner. The fact is

^ A bibliography of most of the studies of the decree is placed at the end of this article.
' Several scholars, nnable to assert that the decree is a faithfnl copy of a text from 480,
have fallen back on Sponsoring a belief in the "relative authenticity" of the text. I would
Protest against this. Either the Athenians planned, even before the battle of Artemisium,
to evacuate Athens, or they did not. The decree says that they did, but Herodotus seems not
to know this. We must choose between the historian and the inscription.

12 Zeitschrift „PhUologus" 3/4

Brought to you by | Brown University Rockefeller Library

Authenticated | 128.148.252.35
Download Date | 6/15/14 8:13 PM
158 MORTIHEB CHAMBEBS

that the word is common in the fonrth Century as well as in the fifth; and at
all times it means no more than "a group of people organized in some
manner". If Aeschylus U8ed it to mean "a ship's crew", that does not mean
that no one in the fourth Century could have used the word in the same
wayi. And, even if it could be shown that the word was somewhat imfamiliar
in the fourth Century in the sense of "crew", a potential forger of the decree
could have selected the word to lend credibility to his work.
The same criticaL method is available to those who defend the authenticity
of the decree. Some critics have pointed to the epithet used of Athena,
"the guardian of Athens" ('A9T()vöi(i [(ieSeo]ü[<r)rJ, 4—5) as an indication
that the text cannot descend from the early fifth centary. They suggest
that this epithet presupposes the existence of the Athenian Empire: it is
found on inscriptions dating from the time of the Empire (ca. 454—404)
and Coming from outside Athens, while in strictly Athenian inscriptions
it is practically non-existent®. This Observation is accurate and trenchant,
but it is not conclusive. We must admit, with Professor M E B I T T , that
"existence of the epithet in the middle fifth Century and in the early fourth
Century abroad does not prove that it was inappropriate in Athens earlier"
We might also object to the rhetorical style — the "pathetic" style, as
it has been called — of the resolution. D A V I D L E W I S would reply that we
have no reason to deny that Themistocles used moving rhetoric on the
occasion. This reply may be valid. I still consider the inflated, patriotic
language unlikely in a genuine public resolution; but the defenders invoke
yet another argument. Everyone admits that decrees were preserved on
papyri and that only a fraction of those passed were ever inscribed on stone
by an expensive process. When the Athenians did inscribe a decree, they
may have altered or revised its text*. The same thing might happen if the
transmifision then went the other way — that is, if a weiter copied an
inscription. We can see the result of such changes if we compare the in-

^ In his Persians, 381—382, Aeschylus does indeed use the word when referring to a
crew; but the Greek-English Lexicon of LIDDELL and SCOTT provides examples from the
fourth Century where the word means "group, squad, contingent" — a meaning in no way
different from that of Aeschylus.
^ See HABICHT, p. 4, a n d MOBETTI (2).
« MEBITT (2), p. 29.
* Several defenders of the decree have drawn support from GÜNTHEB KLAFFENBACH'S
"Bemerkungen zum griechischen Urkundenwesen", Sitzungsber. der Deutschen Akad. der
Wiss. zu Berlin, Kl. für Sprachen, Lit. und Kunst (No. 6, 1960), pp. 1—42. For example
(p. 34): " w e must free ourselves from the modern concept of the nature of a document...
For the Greeks the only question concemed the content, and the form was secondary. The
wording did not have to be completely identical in all details, provided that everything
essential was said."

Brought to you by | Brown University Rockefeller Library

Authenticated | 128.148.252.35
Download Date | 6/15/14 8:13 PM
 The Significance of the Themistocles Decree 159

scription preserving part of an alliance among Athens and three Pelopon-

nesian states with the text of it that we read in Thucydides, 5.47^. If we
assume that the original text of the Themistocles decree was recorded on
papyrus and then inscribed later, next copied by the antiquarian researcher
Cratenis in his Collected Inscriptions CFrjcptffiJuxTtov auvaYwy^)®, then in-
scribed once more on the third-century stone found at Troizen and edited
by Jameson, we may explain away such features of the language as "the
fluid and somewhat redundant prose, undulating with (lev and Se", as
Professor Amandry describes it.
T h e m e a n i n g o f uTcrjpedia. But I must comment on one further linguistic
point that has now entered the debate. Professor Jameson has recently
suggested a new Interpretation of the word ÜTCTjpeeria, giving it a meanrng
that would not be evident to a fourth-century forger — and, indeed, a
meanrng unknown in the fifth-century documents at our disposaP. The
usual meaning of UTnjpeoCa in naval contexts is "petty officers", or "trades-
men", or "special services": this appears from various passages in Thucy-
dides and in orators. Jameson would understand it, in line 26 of the decree,
to mean "the marines and archers": that is, the same groups of fighting
personnel who have just been mentioned in lines 23 through 25. This portion
of the text, on Jameson's theory, goes thus:
23 They shall also choose
24 marines, ten for each ship, from those who are between 20
25 and 30 years old, along with four archers;
26 they shall also distribute t h e (i.e. these) f i g h t i n g m e n by lot to
the ships . . .
Such a use of the term uTnjpewta would, it is true, be at variance with fourth-
century practice. But I do not find the suggestion convincing.

1 For this inscription (Inscr. Graecae P 86), see M. N. Tod, A Seleotion of Oreek Histo-
rical Inscriptions, vol. 1, ed. 2 (Oxford 1946), no. 72. In the case of this decree, two reasons
appear for the discrepancies between Thucydides' version and the remains of the version
found at Athens: Thucydides' own spelling and usage, and the probahility that he was
copying from an ezemplar of this international treaty that he found outside Athens.
^ Several writers (Teeu, Schachebmbtb) have suggested that our text was in the
collection of decrees compiled by Craterus. Nothing proves this assumption. There is even
some evidence pointing against it, in the fact that Plutarch (Themistocles 10,11) see ms to
regard the provisions for evacuating Athens and the decree recalling the ostracized as two
separate Themistocles decrees; see Hahn. Plutarch sometimes used Craterus (Cimon 13,
Aristides 26) and perhaps would not have faUed to notice that Craterus considered the whole
Themistocles decree as a unit, if such had been the case. Still, we must leave open the
possibility that Craterus included the decree, substantially in its present version, in his
work.

» See J a m e s o n (5), 3 8 8 - 3 9 1 .

12»
Brought to you by | Brown University Rockefeller Library
Authenticated | 128.148.252.35
Download Date | 6/15/14 8:13 PM
160 MOBTIMEB CEAHBEBS

First, it seems difficult to understand Ta^ u7nf)ps<Tia? in line 26 as resuming

two nouns mentioned in the immediately preceding lines; some demonstra-
tive pronoun, pointing backward, such as "these men" (TOÜTOU?) would
seem more natural^. Again, this passage in the text is punctuated by several
examples of the particles xat, "and also"; I interpret these particles as
separating the instructions given about several diflferent kinds of personnel.
We find in this series Orders to "appoint ships' captains" (xaTa(m)CTai 8e.
xal Tpir)[p]a[pxou(;], 18—19), to "choose marines" (xaroXe^ai 8h xai ^[i]-
ßara?, 23—24), to "assign the petty officers by lot" (Sta[xXifjpci(iai 8k x]al
£T]a<; uTojpefftoK;, 26), and to "post the names of the saUors" (ävaYpa<l/ai 8k
xa[l Toi? vaÜTa?] or [iXXou?], 27—28). I find no difficulty in the usual
translation of uTnjpeaia as "petty officers" or "special services".
JAMESOK objects that this familiar translation is unsuitable because
nothing is said about the qualifications, source, or number of this group
of men. This objection canies little weight. If the composer of the decree
— the forger, as I should prefer to say — did not describe the qualifications
of the uTCTjpeaia, so much the worse for him. It is not our duty to paper
over his crack by finding a new and imexampled translation of a fairly
familiar term referring to naval personnel. I therefore do not accept the
suggestion that the use of this word bespeaks an early fifth-century text
and is thus a proof of the authenticity of our inscription.
The decree tested against Herodotus, I repeat, the real test of
authenticity cannot be made through philological and technical study of
the form of the decree. We already have one first-class source for the second
Persian War in the History of Herodotus. The credibility of Herodotus
has been upheld time and again in the recent studies of Greek topography
by Professor PEITCHETT and in the microscopicaUy thorough study of the
second Persian War by Mr. HIGNETT. SO far as concems the general course
of the war and the unfolding of the campaigns, Herodotus is largely un-
shakeable^. As everyone knows, he was often the victim of grossly exag-
gerated statistics given him by others (or, perhaps, worked out by him),
but that is not the issue here.
^ Here is one place where the developed, polished literary style of the decree is more
than normally sospect. The Interpretation offered by JAHBSOIT requires iis to consider
ijnjpeoCa as a literary variant, a mere synonym, for "the marines and bowmen". This
kind of constmction is familiar enoagh in English: "President Johnson met the press. The
Chief executive s t a t e d . . . " ; but in an early Attic inscription it can scarcely be accepted,
and on this point it is essential to JAMBSOK'S view that the words of the pmported decree
arc preserved ezi^tly.
^ Recently ABTHBB, FEEKILL has upheld Herodotus' credibility in his Herodotus and
the Strategy and Tactics of the Invasion of Xerxes, American Historical Review 72,
No. 1, 1966, 102-115.

Brought to you by | Brown University Rockefeller Library

Authenticated | 128.148.252.35
Download Date | 6/15/14 8:13 PM
 The Significance of the Themiatocles Decree 161

In my opinion the decree absolutely cannot be reconciled with Herodotus,

whose narrative is clear, coherent, and logical concerning the aftermath
of the naval battle at Cape Artemisiumi. The battle was inconclusive, the
Athenians saw no way to protect Athens by land, and in panic they evac-
uated their city. Nothing is said of any prior decision. The attempts to find
hints in the text of Herodotus referring to the decree can be quickly dealt
with. First, 7.144.3 has been claimed as a reference to the decree. Herodotus
uses the words "along with those of the Greeks who were wiUing [to fight]"
(ajxa 'ETkXrivtüv xoiat ßouXo(xevoi<ji), while the restored text of the decree
has "along with those who wish to share in the danger" ((IEXA . . . T Ü V ÄXXCÜV
TCÖJI, ßouXo(ievco[v] xoiva)[v:Q(rciv TOÜ xivSivoJu, 16 — 18). Perhaps it is enough

simply to state that this verbal similarity does not compel us to associate
Herodotus with the text of the decree.
Next, I have heard it suggested that a passage at 8.41.1 can be interpreted
so as to reconcile Herodotus and the decree. The historian here says that
after the battle at Artemisium the Atheniana issued a proclamation, xrjpuyfxa,
ordeiing everyone to look to his own safety. To me, this remark proves
that nobody in Athens had ever moved a decree providing for evacuation
before Artemisium waa even fought. But some would say that this pro-
clamation, or XT^puYjia, was a kind of "executive Order" or "activating
decree" that put into action a plan already long conceived; in other wordsj
the Themistocles decree, with its minute preparations, had already been
passed and the moment to put it into operation had now arrived®. This
interpretation does ofFer a way out of the conflict between Herodotus and
the inscription. I do not accept it, because I believe that Herodotus would
have made it clearer that a decree had been passed some weeks previolisly,
if this had been the caae®.
The clash between Herodotus and the new decree therefore remains.
There is no reason to imagine him wrong in considering the evacuation of
Athens a last-minute action by frightened people. That is not to say that
nobody in Athens had ever imagined that evacuation might become neces-

' DASCAI-AKIS has quite rightly taken his stand on this gronnd.
' THIEL, in an essay written in his nsoal sparkling English, conjectnres that a final
section of the decree has been lost; in this portion, Themistocles will have stated that
a proclamation would signal an evacuation if it became necessary. T H I E L finds this "pro-
clamation" in the x^puyixa mentioned by Herodotus, 8.41. In other, more persuasive,
parts of his paper, he refuses to admit that a mere delaying operation was planned at
Artemisium. See also L A Z E N B T .
* Herodotus' word föo^e (7.144.3) only means that the Athenians "decided" to resist
the Fersians with their navy. We need not understand the word as an echo of the decree,
which admittedly begins (like aU other decrees reeording public decisions in Athens) with
föo^e.

Brought to you by | Brown University Rockefeller Library

Authenticated | 128.148.252.35
Download Date | 6/15/14 8:13 PM
162 MOBTIMEB CHAHBEBS

sary. But the satisfactory Order of events in Herodotus, -whose credibility

is assured by bis immediate proximity to well-informed Athenians, must
take precedence over a third-century inscription. This is all the more so
in view of the other spiirious documents from the time of the Persian
Wars — the Oath at Plataea, the Covenant of Plataea, and probably the
Decree of Miltiades^.
The composing of the decree. Now since it is highly likely (and in
my opinion demonstrated) that inauthentic "documents" were in circulation
during the fourth and other centuries, we still have to ask how they arose.
In the case of our decree, we may exploit an inference drawn by Dr. I. HAHN.
I do not agree with Dr. ELAHN'S acceptance of the decree as authentic, but
I accept the conclusion that our decree as now preserved appears to be a
conflation of at least two, and more probably three, separate texts. Plutarch,
in his Life of Themistocles, chapter 10, summarizes the Themistocles decree
by giving the gist of the first eighteen lines of the text from Troizen. Then,
in the next chapter, he goes on to say that Themistocles also moved the
decree recalling to Athens those statesmen who had previously been ostra-
eized. The Troizen inscription contains a section at the end by which the
ostracized are recalled; but Plutarch quite evidently regarded the recall
of the ostracized as based on another decree entirely, even though Themis-
tocles was the aUeged mover. That is, he knew of decrees ascribed to Themi-
stocles, but he did not know any text that combined both the order to
evacuate and the recall of the ostracized within one decree.
Mr. HIGNETT has already objected that the decree from Troizen is a lex
satura, in that it combines several different resolutions in one text. He
maintarns that "no true parallel to this decree" is known from Athenian
inscriptions of the fifth Century. Whether or not we take this objection
seriously, we must at least be suspicious about the fact that the Troizen
text combines provisions known to Plutarch from two separate texts. How
these different decreea of Themistocles made their way into Plutarch's
sources remains imknown, although we may easüy suggest Craterus as their
preserver^.
The recall of the ostracized. The section on the ostracized Athenians
in the text from Troizen presents yet another problem; in discussing it,
I must revise some ideas that I have expressed earüer. HIGNETT has pointed
out that the Instructions to the ostracized are difficult to credit because

1 These and other falsified "documents" are comprehensively studied by H A B I C H T and

form part of the case drawn up by the other historians who oontest the decree's validity.
^ See above, p. 159, note 2; and observe that H A H N ascribes the imification of the three
decrees to Craterus, while others would invoke Craterus as the mere preserver of a text
constructed in the fourth Century.

Brought to you by | Brown University Rockefeller Library

Authenticated | 128.148.252.35
Download Date | 6/15/14 8:13 PM
 The Significance of the Themistocies Decree 163

they hold out the promise of restoration for these exiles only after they
have gone to the island of Salamis to serve out an indefinite waiting period;
it is hardly likely that they would accept such a cold invitation. Plausibly,
HIGNETT suggests that the composer of the decree took seriously the story
in Herodotus, to the effect that Aristides suddenly appeared at Salamis
just before the famous sea-battle that turned back the Persian navy^. To
reject the section on the ostracized by pointing to a doubtful anecdote in
Herodotus might seem to be yielding ground to his critics; one could then
go on to say that, since Herodotus was inaccurate about Aristides' sudden
Visit to Salamis, he may well have been wrong about the circumstances
of the evacuation of Attica.
But there are also chronological reasons for suspicion about the lines of
the decree in which the ostracized are recalled. If the decree is historical,
it was proposed at some time during the summer of 480; whether in June
or July is of secondary importance and depends on complicated reaaoning
about the chronology of the campaign of 480®. N o w the decree ofiFering
amnesty to the ostracized is dated in Aristotle's Athenian Constitution to
the year when Hypsichides was the Athenian archon®. I n most secondary
sources, Hypsichides and the vote of amnesty are dated to the Attic year
481/480, the year being reckoned from one summer to the next*. This date

' Hdt. 8.79, where Aristides is said to have crossed to Salamis from Aegina; how he
got to Aegina is not ezplained, but the whole story is suspiciotisly dramatic, as HIONETT
implies. It is also ably questioned by C. W. FOBNABA, The Hoplite Achievement at Psyt-
taleia, Journal of Hellenic Studies 86, 1966, 61—54.
' For a discussion of the chronology of 480, see HIONBTT. He does not accept the attempt
by J. LIABABBE, in Btdl. de correspondance hell^niqne 78, No. 1, 1964, 1—21, to prove
that the battle of ArtemiBiom and the concurrent battle of Thermopylae were in progress
on July 30, 480. LABABBE'S argument rests on a clever anecdote in the Strategie writer
Folyaenus, 1.32. SSALBT accepts LABABBE'S theory and dates the battle of Salamis to
middle or late September. He accounts for the long interval between Artemisium-Thermop-
ylae and Salamis by postulating a fairly serious attempt to hold the Athenian Acropolis.
There is some evidence in Herodotus 8.62 in favor of his opinion. If this is right, then the
Athenians changed (or never adopted) the plan envisioned by the decree, namely, to leave
only treasurers and priestesses on the Acropolis as a merely religious remnant. SEALBT
thus partly restates MTTNBO'S view in the Cambridge Ancient History, and BTTBT'S in his
History of Greece (ed. 3, London 1961 etc.), 278. If we accept this vievr, which we may
do regardless of the chronology that LABABBE proposes, we have another point at which
the decree departs fairly widely from the historical facts.
' Aiistotle, Athenian Constitution 22.8.
* So, for example, C. HIONETT, A History of the Athenian Constitution, Oxford 1952,
336 —337; G. BUSOLT, Griechische Geschichte, 3 vols. in 4, Gotha 1893—1904, vol. 2,
ed. 2, p. 651, n. 4; J. E. SAITDYS, Aristotle's Constitution of Athens, ed. 2, London 1912,
on 22.8.

Brought to you by | Brown University Rockefeller Library

Authenticated | 128.148.252.35
Download Date | 6/15/14 8:13 PM
164 M o b t i m e b Chambbbs

would fit the Themistocles decree if we date the decree to midsummer 480,
before the new archon, Calliades, took office for 480/479.
I wish to point out that we have no independent evidence from chronog-
raphers or archon-lists that would fix Hypsichides in 481/480. The reader
of Dr. C a d o u x ' s leamed edition of the Attic archon-list will see that we
can recover the date of this archon only by combination And there is
good reason to think that Hypsichides actuaUy belongs in 482/481. His date
depends on our Interpretation of chapter 22 of Aristotle's Constitution.
Aristotle here lists several ostracisms, including that of Xanthippus, the
father of Pericles. Aristotle gives no date for the ostracism of Xanthippus,
but we can date it from the fact that Aristotle uses it as a chronological
reference-point and says that the Athenians discovered their famous mines
in Maroneia in the third year after this ostracism — namely, in the year
of Nicodemus. This archon in t u m is datable to 483/482 on the authority
of Dionysius of Halicamassus^. Therefore Xanthippus was ostracized in
the third year back (on inclusive reckoning), or in 485/484. This, then, is
the year that Aristotle used as a fixed reference-point.
Later in the same chapter of the Constitution, Aristotle says that "in
the fourth year afterward" the Athenians recaUed those who had been
ostracized. The fourth year after what? I t is natural to assume that he goes
back to the same fixed point he has just used, that is, the year of Xanthippus'
ostracism. The fourth year after 485/484 is 482/481. This year has no archon
attested by any chronographic source. As C a b c o p i n o saw, this is the year
to which we should assign Hypsichides®. No objection to this date can
arise from Aristotle's remark that the Athenians recalled the ostracized
"on account of the invasion of Xerxes". This statement, though perfectly
true, is only an editorial addition by Aristotle or his source, made to explain
why the amnesty was voted: it is not a chronological datum that can assure
US that the amnesty was passed while Xerxes' army was already marching
through Greece.
Therefore Aristotle's date for the amnesty-decree, which he must have
extracted from the Atthis, or History of Athens, by the fourth-century

^ See T. J. Cadoux, The Athenian Archons from Kreon to Hypsichides, Journal of

Hellenic Studies 68, 1948, 70-123, on p. 119.
* Boman Antiquities 8.83.1. Dionysius gives the archon's name as Nicodemus, which
agrees with the text of the Berlin fragments of the Constitution; the London papyrus
(British Museum papyrus 131) has Nicomedes. Preference goes to Nicodemus because of
the two independent witnesses. A. E. Rattbitschbk, Die Rückkehr des Aristeides, Historia
8, 1959, 127 — 128, seeks to have both names by aasuming that they represent different
men who were archon in two different years.
9 See J. Cabcopino, L'ostracisme athfoien, ed. 2, Paris 1935, 153—157.

Brought to you by | Brown University Rockefeller Library

Authenticated | 128.148.252.35
Download Date | 6/15/14 8:13 PM
 The Significance of the Themistocles Decree 165

historian Androtion^, shows that the amnesty had been voted at least one
year before the purported date of the Themistocles decree. Consequently,
the final section of the decree must be thrown out entirely; or we must
adopt a date for the amnesty-decree that will force us to emend the text
of Aristotle®. Probably the composer of the final section of the decree, on
the ostracized, overlooked the fact that the resolution ofFering them amnesty
was one year earlier than the date required by the Themistocles decree.
I t would have been hard for him to resist the tempting collocation of the
amnesty-decree and the rest of the text that we are considering.
The v a l u e of t h e decree. The Themistocles decree is still an ancient
inscription (even though not a historically authentic one), and we must
still add it to our mass of documentation about Greece. Some scholars who
deny the authenticity of the decree have given their hypotheses about the
circumstances in which the text came into existence®. We can never be
certain why such a decree was forged, unless we can point to some specific
legislation or political aim that a forgery would have advanced. My own
suggestion has been that the decree comes from an era when the Athenians
were reinterpreting that past from a patriotic point of view. This happened
especially during the decade from 357 (when the war broke out between
Athens and her allies) to 346 (when Athens made a temporary peace wlth
King Philip II of Macedon). During this period, the assumptions and practice
of demoo-acy went through a searching review. Part of the result was the
ill-informed reconstruction of the history of Athenian democracy that foimd
its way into fourth-century histories of Athens and then into Aristotle's
Constitution.
Along wlth the movement of rewriting the history of Athens, we might
imagine that some Athenians looked for positive evidence for the past glory
of their democracy. We might go farther, with Professor HABICJHT, and
believe that the creation of documents favorable to democracy took place

1 The usual assumption, that Aristotle normally follows Androtion for bis chronologi-
cally-ordered seriea qf facta, is stated by F E L I X JACOBY, Atthis, Oxford 1 9 4 9 , p. 2 3 5 ,
n. 36. This view is also sponsored by J. DAY and M. CHAMBEES, Aristotle's History of
Athenian Democracy, Berkeley and Los Angeles 1962, 5—12.
* If we try to reckon Aristotle's "fourth year afterward" from the last event mentioned
(the discovery of the mines), in 4 8 3 / 4 8 2 , we reach 4 8 0 / 4 7 9 ; and we cannot place the amnesty-
decree and the archon Hypsichides in this year, for CaUiades is abeady known to have
been archon in 4 8 0 / 4 7 9 . Therefore some historians have proposed to emend Aristotle's
text so that "fourth" becomes "third": see ü. v. WILAMOWITZ-MOEIX.EMDOKE'F, Aristoteles
und Athen, 2 vols., Berlin 1 8 9 3 , 1 . 2 5 — 2 6 ; CADOUX, loc. cit., p. 164, note 1, above), 1 1 8 ;
HiomsTT, op. cit. (p. 163, note 4 , above), 3 3 6 — 3 3 7 .
» HABICHT, pp. 2 6 — 3 5 , examines several possibilities and concludes that political aims
were paramount.

Brought to you by | Brown University Rockefeller Library

Authenticated | 128.148.252.35
Download Date | 6/15/14 8:13 PM
166 MOBTIMEE CHAMBEBS

within the circle of politicians who would then be able to praise democracy
on the basis of this new evidence. But the Une between politicians and histo-
rians in Greece was not a firm one; and we do not have to assume that only
politicians in the strict sense wotdd have fabricated the Themistocles decree
and the other falsified documents aUegedly coming from the period of the
Persian Ware.
No matter who was the Compiler of the decree, he was an Athenian
devoted to restoring or confirming a patriotio view of Athenian history^.
He replaced the historically probable picture of the Athenians evacuating
their city in panic, after their failure to stop the Persians at Artemisium,
with another one that he found preferable: the well-organized Athenians,
guided by their democratic leader Themistocles, had planned it all from the
beginning. The supporters of the decree object that this veraion removes
the ground for the Athenian claim that only the failure of their allies to
stand and fight on land after Artemisium forced the evacuation. But what
of it? A subtle, historically-minded reader might find such an objection,
but the ordinary man of ancient Greece must have been inspired by the
Order, discipline, and Strategie finesse of the operation.
Someone in the Peloponnesian village of Troizen (which had given shelter
to some of the evacuees), for a reason what we do not yet know, chose an
oecasion in the third Century to have this manufactured decree transferred
to stone®. His general purpose was to honor Athens, and he must have re-
oeived his text from Athens. Whatever explanation we may one day have
for this kindly act, even in our present ignorance it shows us something
of the relations between ancient Greek city-states.

Bibliography of the Themistocles Decree

(omitting a few snmmary artioles)
I. Bibliographies
S. Dow (1), Bibliography of the Purported Themistokles Inscription from Troizen,
Classioal World 55, No. 4, 1961/2, 105—108. Gathering of artioles, including joumalistio
notices, through the end of 1961. Implied disbelief in authenticity.
A. N. OIKONOMIDBS, Athene (Chicago, III.) 22, No. 2, 1961, 3—7, 64; also in vol. 23 as
foUows: No. 1 , 1 5 - 1 6 , 41; No. 2, 7 7 - 7 8 ; No. 3, 56; No. 4, 89 (all 1962/3). Accepts vaüdity.

1 Even if, with HAHK, we assume that Craterus (or someone eise) at some time united
the parts of the decree into one text, we can hardly imagine that anyone but an Athenian
was responsible for the content of the insoription(8).
» We also do not know the procedure by which the inscription came into existence at
Troizen. Dow (2) suggests that a papyrus copy of the text was sent to Troizen, where the
stone was cut by a local stonecutter. MEBITT (2) agrees with JAMESON (2) in the belief that
the stone is of Pentelic marble: that is, it comes from Attica. If so, it was probably in-
scribed at Athens and then sent to Troizen. HABDT and PBITCHETT would like it explained
how the stone is known to be Pentelic.

Brought to you by | Brown University Rockefeller Library

Authenticated | 128.148.252.35
Download Date | 6/15/14 8:13 PM
 The Significance of the Themistocles Decree 167

J . and L. ROBERT, Bulletin 6pigraphique, in Revue des Stüdes grecques as follows: 74,
Jan.—June, 1961, no. 320; 75, Jan.—June, 1962, nos. 135 — 143; 76, Jan.—June, 1963,
n o s . 9 6 - 9 8 ; 7 7 , J a n . - J u n e , 1964, n o s . 1 8 2 — 1 8 7 ; 7 8 , J a n . — J u n e , 1 9 6 5 , n o s . 166-170.
Summaries of selected articles; authenticity firmly denied.
Supplementum Epigraphioum Graecum 18, 1962, no. 153, also pp. 245—247; 19, 1963,
no. 319. SEG will continue to resume the bibliography.

II. Textual Studies

D. A. HABDY and W. K. PBITCHETT, Suggested Changes in the Troizen Inscription,
Annual of the British School a t Athens 59,1964,30—31. Notes on text. Most important, read
T^? (not TO«;) in line 34. Authors ask how it can be stated t h a t the marble is Pentelic, i.e.
Attic.
M. H. JAMKSON (1), A Decree of Themistokles from Troizen, Hesperia 29, No. 2, 1960,
198—223. The editio princeps, with emdite commentary. Raises and answers some potential
criticisms of authenticity.
M. H. JAMESON (2), A Revised Text of the Decree of Themistokles from Troizen, Hesperia
31, No. 3, 1962, 310—315. Now the text to which reference should be made.
B. D. MBBITT (1), Note on the Text of the Decree of Themistokles, Hesperia, 31, No. 4,
1962, 413. Supports the figure "200" in line 32.

III. Discussions
P. AMAITDBT, Th^mistocle: un d^cret et an portrait. Bull, de la Facult^ des Lettres de
Strasbourg 38, No. 8, 1961, 413—435. Against, on grounds of style and historical im-
probability; argues t h a t the famons portrait bust from Ostia is also inanthentic.
Y. B:6QUIONON, Revue arch^ologique, No. 1, 1961, 57—59. Raises question of authen-
ticity.
H. BEBTE, Zur Themistokles-Inschrift von Troizen, Bayerische Akad. der Wissen-
schaften (Munich), Philos.-hist. Klasse, Sitzimgsberichte, No. 3, 1961, pp. 1—50. Acoepts
authenticity; largely a detailed reply to HABICHT. (Review by L. MOBBTTI, Rivista di
filologia, new ser., 40, No. 2, 1962, 194—196.)
W. DEN BOBB, Themistocles and Fifth-century Historiography, Mnemosyne, ser. 4, 15,
No. 3, 1962, 225—237. Decree is genuine and was passed in the absence of Attic peasants,
who were on their land and not voting. The xi^puYfxa of Hdt. 8.41 " m u s t have been pre-
ceded" by a large prior evacuation.
A. R. BTTBN, Persia and the Greeks, New York 1962, pp. 364—377 ("The Troizen
Inscription"). Author "inclines to the soeptical side", suspecting t h a t Athenians tried to
"restore" lost decrees of the Persian Wars. Independent translation, textual notes.
M. CHAMBEBS, The Authenticity of the Themistocles Decree, American Historical
Review 67, No. 2, 1962, 306—316. Against, with arguments largely similar t o those of
HABICHT a n d MOBBTTI.
N. G. CONOMIS, A Decree of Themistocles from Troizen: A Note, Klio, 40,1962, 44—50.
Comparison of the decree with authors who cite it; accepts authenticity, which " m a y
increase our surprise a t the misrepresentation of the facts by Herodotus and later authori-
ties".
A. DASCAI.AXIS, Problömes historiques autour de la bataille des Thermopyles, £cole
fran9aise d'Äthanes, Travaux et m6moires, etc., fasc. 12, Paris 1962, Appendice, pp. 189—
204 (also issued separately in July, 1961). Against authenticity on historical grounds;
notices of some articles already published.

Brought to you by | Brown University Rockefeller Library

Authenticated | 128.148.252.35
Download Date | 6/15/14 8:13 PM
168 MOBTIUEB CHAMBERS

G. DAUX, Chronique des fouillea 1959, Bulletin de correspondance hell^nique 84, No. 2,
1960, 685—688. Suspicious of authenticity; the first to suggest a third-century date for the
inscription (c. 250).
S. Dow (2), The Purported Decree of Themistokles: Stele and Inscription, American
Jonmal of Archaeology 66, No. 4, 1962, 353 — 368, with notes on the text by JAMESON,
p. 368. Many technical aspects of the form of the inscription; date, third Century.
H.-P. DBÖOEITÜIXEB, Bemerkungen zur Stele von Troizen, Gymnasium 68, Nos. 3—4,
1961, 230—233. Finds decree probably a forgery.
C. W. FOENABA, The Value of the Themistocles Decree, American Historical Review,
forthcoming. Herodotna 7.144 refers to the decree; accepta validity.
L. M. GLUSKENA, The Troizen Inscription with the Decree of Themistocles (in Russian),
Vestnik Drevnej Istorii, n. 86, 1963, 35—52.1 cannot read this; said to accept validity.
M. GUABDUCCI, Nnove osservazione sul decreto di Temistocle, Rivista di filologia, new
ser., 39, No. 1, 1961, 48—78. Agrees with MOEETTI, against; dates composition of text to
3 5 7 - 3 5 5 B.C.
C. HABICHT, Falsche Urkunden zur Geschichte Athens im Zeitalter der Perserkriege,
Hermes 89, No. 1, 1961, 1—35. The still classic Statement sgainst authenticity.
I . HAHN, Zur Echtheitsfrage der Themistokles-Inschrift, Acta Antiqua Acad. Scienti-
arum Hungaricae 13, Nos. 1—2, 1965, 27—39. The three parts of the decree (evacuation,
mobilization, recall of the ostracized) descended separately and were united by Craterus.
Accepta validity.
C. HIONBTT, Xerxes' Invasion of Greece, Oxford 1963, pp. 458—468. Against authenti-
city; written in January, 1961. Excellent treatment.
M. H. JAMESON (3), How Themistokles Planned the Battie of Salamis, Scientific Ameri-
can 204, No. 3, 1961, 111-120.
M. H. JAMESON (4), Waiting for the Barbarian: New Light on the Persian Wars, Greece
& Rome, new ser., 8, No. 1, 1961, 5—18.
M. H. JAMESON (5), The Provisions for Mobilization in the Decree of Themistokles,
Historia 12, No. 4, 1963, 385—404. Argues that ÜTtrjpeoia means "fighting men"; this
otherwise unexampled use points towards authenticity. Other details discussed.
J . F. LAZENBY, The Strategy of the Greeks in the Opening Campaign of the Persian
War, Hermes 92, No. 3, 1964, 264—284. Decree may be valid, but Artemisium was not a
holding action.
D. M. LEWIS, Notes on the Decree of Themistokles, Classioal Quarterly, new ser., 11,
No. 1, 1961, 61—66. Defends authenticity, sees no difficulties in rhetorical style.
IDA CAI.ABI LIMBNTANI, II decreto di Temistocle nella nuova stele di Trezene, Rivista
storioa italiana 73, No. 2, 1961, 345-355. Against.
G. MASSOU, N valore storiografico del decreto temistocleo di Trezene, Parola del passato
18, fasc. 93, 1963, 4 1 9 - 4 3 4 . Substantially accepts authenticity.
B. D. MKBITT (2), Greek Historical Studies (Semple Lecture), Cincinnati 1962, pp. 21—34.
Defends validity, replies to HABICHT and other critics.
B. D. MEBITT (3), Greek Inscriptions, Hesperia 33, No. 2, 1964, 175—178. Reply to
Dow (2): examples of Attic inscriptions with lettering resembling that of the decree;
assertion that the stone is Pentelic marble and was inscribed in Athens.
L. MOEETTI (1), Nota al decreto di Temistocle trovato a Trezene, Rivista di filologia, new
ser., 38, No. 4, 1960, 390—402. First published article critical of authenticity; historical
arguments since stated by others.

Brought to you by | Brown University Rockefeller Library

Authenticated | 128.148.252.35
Download Date | 6/15/14 8:13 PM
 The Significance of the Themistocles Decree 169

L. MORBTTI (2), Studi sul decreto di Temistocle, Rivista di filologia, new ser., 42, No. 1,
1964, 117 — 124. Summary and review of the scholarship since M.'s earlier article. Maintains
his critical position.
W. K. PBITCHETT, Herodotos and the Themistokles Decree, American Journal of
Archaeology 66, No. 1, 1962, 43—47. C!onfirms H A B I C H T ' S reading, "ten marines", in line
24; follows H A B I C H T on authenticity, upholds Herodotus as a soiirce.
A. E. RAUBITSCHEK (1), The Covenant of Plataea, Transactions of the American Philo-
logical Association 91, 1960, 178 — 183. Accepts the "C!ovenant of Plataea"; its authenticity
implies that of the decree. ''
A. E. RAUBITSCHEK (2), Herodotus and the Inscriptions, Bull, of the Institute of Classical
Studies, Univ. of London, 8, Part 1, 1961, 59—61. Accepts decree.
F. SCHACHBBMEYB, Die Themistokles-Stele und ihre Bedeutvmg für die Vorgeschichte
der Schlacht von Salamis, Jahreshefte des Osterreichischen Archäologischen Institutes in
Wien 46, 1963, 158—175. The decree is genuine; Themistocles persuaded Delphi to give
the Oracle fizing Salamis as the place for the crucial battle.
R . S E A L E Y , A Note on the Supposed Themistocles-Decree, Hermes 9 1 , No. 3 , 1 9 6 3 ,
3 7 6 — 3 7 7 . Postulates a serious attempt to hold the Acropolis, which the decree does not
envision; concludes that the decree is inauthentic.
J . H. THIEL, The Inscription from Troezen, Med. der Konin. Nederlandse Akad. van
Wetenschappen, Afd. Letterkunde, new ser., 25, No. 8,1962, pp. 1 —19. Decree is authentic
but must have been followed by a rider "annonncing the beginning of the evacuation"
when it became necessary.
M. TBEU, Zur neuen Themistokles-Inschiift, Historia 12, No. 1, 1963, 47 —69. Defends
authenticity.
H. T. WALUNOA, Die inscriptie van Troizen, Tijdschrift voor Geschiedenis 77, No. 1,
1964, 25—38. Seeks to combine Herodotiis and the decree.
F . R . W Ü S T , A Decree of Themistokles from Troizen, Gymnasium 6 8 , Nos. 3 — 4 , 1 9 6 1 ,
2 3 3 - 2 3 9 . Against.

University of California
Los A n g e l e s

Brought to you by | Brown University Rockefeller Library

Authenticated | 128.148.252.35
Download Date | 6/15/14 8:13 PM